His Wikipedia page says that he was signed to a minor league deal by the Yankees on June 8th. I haven't heard anything about this and I can't find anything about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jermaine_Dye#New_York_Yankees

I'm thinking it's just a silly practical joke... But can anyone confirm that? I have no idea what Jermaine Dye has been doing since the end of 2009...

dakuda

06-14-2010, 07:01 PM

There is nothing on baseball-reference.com, mlb.com or milb.com that I can find. There is also nothing on mlbtraderumors.com, which seems to do a decent job of gathering everything in one place.

TDog

06-14-2010, 07:43 PM

I haven't heard anything about Jermaine Dye signing a minor league contract.

But I have been told that Wikipedia is a great Internet source.

Rdy2PlayBall

06-14-2010, 08:42 PM

He declined multiple millions because he wanted multiple millions more... I doubt he'd take a minor league contract in a city he will probably never play in. I wish we would just sign him and trade Jones while it sort-of looks like he can kind-of-sort-of produce. :tongue:

Even a slumping Dye is better than the Jones we have. His average is much too low to make me comfortable in key situations.

It's Dankerific

06-14-2010, 11:49 PM

I haven't heard anything about Jermaine Dye signing a minor league contract.

But I have been told that Wikipedia is a great Internet source.

:rolleyes:

Newspapers never make mistakes because they're the printed word!

Rohan

06-15-2010, 12:15 AM

:rolleyes:

Newspapers never make mistakes because they're the printed word!

I just now clicked edit and deleted the entire New York Yankees section of Dye's page. I didn't know it was that easy :o:...

I rely on Wikipedia way too much for school for it to be that easy to edit... My whole education is flashing before my eyes.

chisox616

06-15-2010, 12:36 AM

I just now clicked edit and deleted the entire New York Yankees section of Dye's page. I didn't know it was that easy :o:...

I rely on Wikipedia way too much for school for it to be that easy to edit... My whole education is flashing before my eyes.

Lol, if you really think it's that easy to remove something on Wikipedia you're sorely mistaken; look, it's already back up. You sound like 90% of my professors :tongue:. Really, Wikipedia is insanely good at combating false-edits/removes. I remember Jim Joyce's wikipedia page after the "Imperfect Game"...it was locked within minutes of the error.

As for Dye, I can't believe it but if he goes Minor League I guess he's gonna join a team that will have the best chance of calling him up...do the Yankees qualify? Didn't they just release Randy Winn anyways? I saw him in a Cardinal uniform the other day and was pretty confused, I must've missed that.

Johnny Mostil

06-15-2010, 06:48 AM

I just now clicked edit and deleted the entire New York Yankees section of Dye's page. I didn't know it was that easy :o:...

I rely on Wikipedia way too much for school for it to be that easy to edit... My whole education is flashing before my eyes.

Sometimes I think it best as a souped-up search engine . . .

Iwritecode

06-15-2010, 08:33 AM

But I have been told that Wikipedia is a great Internet source.

I just now clicked edit and deleted the entire New York Yankees section of Dye's page. I didn't know it was that easy :o:...

I rely on Wikipedia way too much for school for it to be that easy to edit... My whole education is flashing before my eyes.

I've always thought that it was a widely known fact that wiki is not exactly reliable considering pretty much anyone can edit the information on there.

It wasn't around when I was in school but I thought I had heard that many teachers won't accept it as a cited source.

ChiSoxGal85

06-15-2010, 08:42 AM

I've always thought that it was a widely known fact that wiki is not exactly reliable considering pretty much anyone can edit the information on there.

It wasn't around when I was in school but I thought I had heard that many teachers won't accept it as a cited source.

My kids (who are in high school) are not allowed to use wiki as a source for schoolwork, because anyone can edit it and write anything they want in it.

FielderJones

06-15-2010, 10:42 AM

Wikipedia all comes down to sources. At the bottom of each article is a source section with links to online or paper and ink sources. If a section in unsourced, use with caution. If a section has sources, you can easily cross-reference and evaluate the accuracy.

Over time, Wikipedia tends to self-correct.

kaufsox

06-15-2010, 12:13 PM

there was a comparison done between the World Book Encyclopedia and Wiki and Wiki had fewer errors.

TDog

06-15-2010, 01:54 PM

there was a comparison done between the World Book Encyclopedia and Wiki and Wiki had fewer errors.

First of all, you shouldn't be using the World Book Encyclopedia as a source. When I was going to school, encyclopedias served a purpose, but they were too far removed from primary sources to be quoted.

Still, I doubt the World Book Encyclopedia published that Jermaine Dye signed with the Yankees. If they did, they would deal with the person or persons responsible for the mistake. And, of course, not all errors are created equal.

It really depends on what you consider to be an error. About a decade ago (at least I was told the following by people in the industry), the Chicago Tribune worked to crack down on the number of errors. It was running about 400 a day, and they cut it in half. Many of the errors would go unnoticed to most people because they dealt with inconsistencies of style, repeated words and grammatical mistakes and misspelled names.

Newspapers run corrections, of course. When I was a reporter, it was a painful thing to have to write a correction, especially for something that I didn't consider to be my fault. I worked for a newspaper that printed corrections for every misspelled name. Few do. Once I doublechecked the spelling of an attorney's name from the directory on the state Bar Association Web site and had the editors change "Steven" to "Stephen." I was informed by the attorney the next day that his name was "Steven." I would have been better off going to the primary source, although the State Bar seemed official. The farther away you get your facts from a primary source, the greater your chances of being wrong. Wikipedia may well have used me as a source (actually, it has done so a few times) on the spelling of this attorney's name.

Newspapers, magazines, encyclopedias and media licensed by the FCC are responsible for their content. That has litigious implications that are nebulous for Wikipedia. If someone posted on the New York Times Web site that Jermaine Dye had signed with the Yankees, personnel action would follow. If someone hacked into the site to post it, a criminal investigation would follow.

The problem with Wikipedia isn't that it is an Internet source. The problem is that it is irresponsible to use Wikipedia as a source because it is not a responsible. If you are writing a term paper in your junior English class, you don't quote some senior, but if you quote Wikipedia, you might be doing just that. Wikipedia certainly is easy, but it isn't much more difficult to use it the proper way, going to the sources the site cites, just as you would work with an encyclopedia.

white sox bill

06-15-2010, 02:25 PM

I use Wiki quite a bit, it nothing else for links at bottom. I have found Wiki despite the vulnerability of false editing, to be right on the money the overwhelming majority of the time.

Coops4Aces

06-15-2010, 04:18 PM

It no longer says he is a Yankee

SOXSINCE'70

06-17-2010, 09:38 AM

:rolleyes:

Newspapers never make mistakes because they're the printed word!

That's write.According to one Chicago rag
(the one that used to own stock in a baseball team),
there is a caption of a Bears WR making a catch.His name
is "Johnny Know".:rolleyes:

Check out this morning's sports section.

I wish I was kidding.

Whitesox029

06-17-2010, 11:26 AM

there was a comparison done between the World Book Encyclopedia and Wiki and Wiki had fewer errors.
*[citation needed]

WhiteSox5187

06-17-2010, 03:40 PM

Wikipedia all comes down to sources. At the bottom of each article is a source section with links to online or paper and ink sources. If a section in unsourced, use with caution. If a section has sources, you can easily cross-reference and evaluate the accuracy.

Over time, Wikipedia tends to self-correct.

The sources at the bottom are great, I've gone to wikipedia when writing papers sometimes for background info on a topic if I don't know a lot about it, but the source material listed is great. I have had a few professors even say so.

jdm2662

06-17-2010, 04:10 PM

The sources at the bottom are great, I've gone to wikipedia when writing papers sometimes for background info on a topic if I don't know a lot about it, but the source material listed is great. I have had a few professors even say so.

That's the key in using it. Look for the sources that it cites. Never reference it directly.